Rep. Chris Collins announced last week he was introducing legislation to overturn the SAFE Act, New York’s strict gun control law.

The bill by the Buffalo-area Republican would prevent states from regulating rifles and shotguns more stringently than the federal government.

“I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations,” said Collins, describing his measure as a “common sense” proposal.

The SAFE Act was quickly passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that killed 27.

The legislation contains a number of elements designed to curb gun violence:

It expanded the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, banned magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, forced pistol permit owners to re-register every five years, and required medical professionals to report potentially dangerous patients, among other regulations.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo slammed the proposal as a “blatant political ploy” and indicated his administration would do everything in their power to stonewall the bill.

“Chris Collins is turning his back on New Yorkers and putting millions of people at profound risk,” said Cuomo. “By fighting to roll back vital legislation that protects the people of the Empire State, Collins is demonstrating once again that he is beholden to no one but the gun lobby and entrenched special interests.”

The law is deeply unpopular in northern New York, where law enforcement and local sportsmen groups continue to be vocal in their opposition.

Pro-gun groups cheered the measure last week, and appeared to be heartened by the prospects of repeal.

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act faces a tough uphill climb to pass the 60 vote threshold in the U.S. Senate, and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives states wide latitude to craft legislation.

We agree that the law unfairly penalizes law-abiding sportsmen and hobbyists and should be repealed.

But it cannot happen in a vacuum.

Any effort to roll back the SAFE Act should be joined by rigorous federal efforts to address gun violence, which continues to be a stain on our country.

Repealing the SAFE Act on its own will do nothing to address this mass violence, including incidents like the shooting that left Rep. Steve Scalise, the House’s third highest-ranking Republican, critically wounded by a gunman at a practice for a charity baseball game in June.

The U.S. must prioritize a set of sensible and permanent solutions to curb this violence, including requiring universal background checks for all firearm purchases, implementing longer waiting periods and banning sales of firearms to those on no-fly lists.

Federal lawmakers must also prioritize more funding for mental health issues.

Polling has shown the American public supports these proposals, and that current federal regulations on guns are inadequate.

Following a recent series of high-profile mass shootings that left scores dead, 62 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws, Gallup reported last year.

However, in a sign of increased polarization, the divide between those who want current legislation heightened and those who preferred to see gun restrictions loosened is at a 16-year high.

The gun control debate is really just a microcosm of where American society is at this point:

If we are to solve some of our nation’s most intractable problems, we simply must find middle ground.

Comments (9)

sensible and permanent solutions to curb this violence,

In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1994 I suspect similar arguments were made for “sensible and permanent solutions” when more restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of quietly accepting the any more. The problem is the real agenda of the people leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) have the track record for killing people that don’t agree with them. This is really just about using relatively infrequent, isolated incidents of gun crimes to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.

jim smith125 days ago

mental health issues

In addition to the doctrine of prior restraint, there are 2 problems with this. First, mental health issues aren’t necessarily present at the time of an evaluation and lots of mentally ill people “present well” - i.e. they are good at hiding their true personality unless it is inadvertently revealed in a psychotic break or crisis situation. The second problem is there are no objective criteria for a mental health evaluation. As is evidenced in court trials, you often have “experts” who disagree and reach completely different conclusions. When this ambiguity is married to regulations written by unaccountable bureaucrats and used by people who are trying to ban all guns from private citizens it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm.

jim smith125 days ago

Polling has shown the American public supports these proposals,

These polls where large numbers of people support background checks ask questions like “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gunbuyers “? That is not the same question that is relevant with regard to the laws that are actually proposed like the federal gun legislation that failed to pass the US Senate in 2013. The relevant poll question in that case would have been “do you support or oppose US Senate Bill 649 or any of its amendments”? Read the bill (SB-649) and the amendments. The title of the bill is word doctored to be innocuous but the devil is in the details and what was being proposed as part of the background check process was a litany of vague, abstruse and onerous restrictions on friends and family members that could trip them up and subject them to intimidation and entrapment by overzealous and unscrupulous authorities who are aligned with an anti-gun agenda. In addition, the hastily written Toomey amendment was worded in such a way that existing gun laws that currently protect gun owners (like a prohibiting a registry) could be circumvented by the President simply having the BATF report to DHS instead of the Attorney General.

jim smith125 days ago

Following a recent series of high-profile mass shootings

According to the CDC, in 2014 there were 33599 deaths from firearms and most were suicides while 10945 were homicides. If someone wants to kill themselves it’s a matter of individual choice where the person can pick the time, place and method and an argument can also be made that an individual’s life belongs to them exclusively and not you, the State or anyone else. Note also that the number of suicides committed with firearms (21334) is less than the number committed by other means (21439) so as long as there are other options, it’s not clear that restricting firearms would have any effect on the number of suicides.

Homicides are a different story. 10945 people murdered by firearms in the US works out to about 29 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 320 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 29,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 29,000 people. To me, 1 in 29,000 is an acceptable cost to help ensure the security of a free state and the right to own a firearm that has harmed no one. It is also estimated there are 109 million gun owners in the US which means on any given day 108,999,971 gun owners didn’t kill anyone yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of firearm homicides will never be zero. So given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number of illegal firearm homicides would ever be acceptable to you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?

jim smith125 days ago

prioritize a set of sensible and permanent solutions to curb this violence,

You could start by enforcing the laws already on the books and quit allowing people who use a gun illegally to plea bargain away the illegal firearms offense. The feds are one of the worst offenders. Straw purchases and lying on the 4473 form you have to fill out for a background check to purchase a firearm is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine - yet in 2010 76142 people failed the background check, 4732 were deemed worthy of prosecution and only 62 were prosecuted

jim smith125 days ago

banning sales of firearms to those on no-fly lists

There is no due process requirement levied upon the government to put a person on the no fly or terrorist watch list. In addition, a person on a no-fly list at the airport can be pulled out of line and questioned or detained. A person who fails a background check at a gun store is allowed to walk out of the store with information about how to challenge the denial. The no-fly and terror watch lists are supposed to be secret so all this really does is allow a terrorist to find out if he is on a list and realize he has to come up with another identity to 1) get a firearm and 2) get on an airplane. So the dirty little secret here is that in order to make this work like they think it should, everyone wanting to purchase a firearm would first have to go to a law enforcement organization for a background check and be detained if they failed. This would accomplish two things the anti-gun zealots dream about - 1) Allow arbitrary denials of the right to bear arms 2) A registry of all gun owners - and keep in mind in every instance where governments have confiscated firearms, it has been preceded by registration.

If the government really wants to implement this, they should be required to follow due process - or more specifically go before a judge to seek approval to add someone’s name and allow the accused person the option to be present to defend him or herself with the right to appeal.

Right now, the criteria for being on the no-fly or terrorist watch list is somewhat secret and arbitrary and the latest legislation that was proposed would allow the Attorney General to add anyone based on some undefined, subjective things called “a reasonable belief” or “appropriately suspected” the person is connected with international or domestic terrorism - and the term “domestic terrorism” is so nebulously defined in 18 USC 2331(5) that it could include anyone the government doesn’t like.

jim smith125 days ago

Universal background Checks

Re: “universal background checks PART 2”

The real benefit of this proposal is how it can help identify the illusive killer with questionable behavior patterns or mental health issues that is causing so many problems. As it stands now there is no easy, fast, non-bureaucratic method for someone to determine if a suspicious person (client, neighbor, employee, student, etc) is a potential threat to society. If someone thinks an individual could be a threat, a query to a public NICS database would at least tell him or her in a few seconds if the individual could obtain a firearm. Then, armed with that information the appropriate authorities could be notified and they could decide if it was erroneous information or whether to investigate further. As it stands now, if you tell authorities you know a suspicious person they will probably ignore you, but if you tell them you know such a person and by the way according to the NICS database he can buy a firearm, they will probably be more inclined to investigate rather than risk embarrassment later if the worst happens. The same would be true if you see a suspicious acquaintance with a firearm when the NICS query says he’s prohibited from having one. It would also help provide piece of mind and a method for victims of violent crimes to ensure their assailants either on parole or still at large have not been excluded from the database because of some bureaucratic foul-up.

Other specific public safety issues where it would be useful are:

 >Allow potential victims to vet known stalkers or acquaintances under a restraining order  >Allow gun clubs to vet potential members >Allow shooting ranges to vet suspicious customers >Help prevent straw purchases by allowing FFL’s to vet all individuals involved with the purchase of a firearm as a gift  >Allow mental health workers to vet troubled individuals like the Aurora Colorado theater killer >Allow resource officers and school officials to vet suspicious students like the Arapahoe High School killer in Colorado >Allow the family of the mentally troubled Lafayette, LA killer to verify he couldn’t purchase a firearm >Allow police officers to vet anyone they contact - (note the routine background checks performed by police often do not include information about firearms because they don’t directly access the NICS database

jim smith125 days ago

Universal Background Checks

Re: “universal background checks PART 1”

Currently, there are only 2 ways to legally sell a gun in the US to a private citizen. One is a private sale between individuals (typically like between family and friends) or by a gun dealer licensed with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the federal BATF. Only individuals with an FFL can run a background check through the government NICS database of prohibited persons. Private citizens cannot. Note that a person can purchase a firearm online, but the physical transfer of the firearm still must go through an FFL at the seller or an FFL local to the buyer. So anyone wanting to improve the process should encourage the federal government to do 2 things:

1) Allow any small gun dealer to get an FFL without having a storefront. Currently, thanks to the Clinton administration’s effort to reduce the supply of guns, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns only at gun shows (Google BATFE form 5310 FFL application and look at question 18a). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs, zoning challenges and overhead of a storefront has to sell illegally or discretely at the edge of the law as a “private individual” and hence can’t run a background check. Rather than throwing these “kitchen table” sellers out of the system like Clinton did hoping they would go away, they should allow them to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules, audits and oversight like they were before the Clinton administration let political anti-gun ideology get in the way.

2) Give anyone free, public, anonymous online access to the NICS database. The NICS database is really a go/no go process and no useful information has to be displayed to facilitate phishing expeditions for identity theft other than what was already known by the user making the query. It’s certainly no more revealing than the national $ex offender registry or the FAA’s pilot and mechanic license query system where the latter provides more detailed information on presumably law-abiding citizens. Once this system is implemented, you then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain documented proof that says you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. This would effectively close the so-called private sale loophole and still preserve the anonymity of the parties involved the same way the current background check system does now. If a private sale firearm shows up at a crime scene, the BATF follows their current procedure of using the serial number of the firearm to contact the manufacturer and ultimately the last FFL that sold the firearm to a private citizen to obtain that citizen’s name and address from the ATF form 4473 the FFL is required to keep on file. That citizen is then contacted and produces the piece of paper from the NICS background check that identifies the second private citizen who is then contacted, and so forth.

jim smith125 days ago

Repeal of SAFE act

Gun violence is not a problem for most people. If the average person had any real reason to fear gun violence the government wouldn't turn down his application for a concealed handgun permit on grounds of failure to show sufficient legitimate need.

Frank Silbermann125 days ago

Letters to the Editor

Top trending 'Letters to the Editor' in the community. Read public responses to these top topics.